Limited Run Breaking Bad WALTER WHITE GLASSES by Magnoli Clothiers

[SquidMan]

Indy, here's a comparison of your new mockup to a high resolution promo photo of Walt's glasses:

I think the thickness is pretty much there now, but as you can see Indy Magnoli, your mockup's bridge is now a little too bent, causing the lens rims to now be too close together, and the corner pieces are in the wrong spot now (and also may be a smidge too long?). Also J EM, how do you feel about the frame shape comparison in this GIF? I think there's some height discrepancies going on here.

At least according to this comparison, which is maybe not the most objective when taking into account differences in angles, etc., it seems like the frames should be resized like this:

But that's probably wrong too compared to the measurements we decided upon earlier, and is a pretty drastic shape change. Thoughts?

 

[J EM]

Ok, so based on your comments, I've photoshopped the prototype photo to include slightly thicker frames, thicker bridge, bending both frames downward to "droop" them a bit and, thereby, curving the bridge:

Oh, and moved the bifocals futher apart (not sure if the factory can do this yet though).

The thicker frame that seems to show on the photos is due to the front tilt showing part of the top of the frame, or the sides due to the frame bend. 1mm thick is correct; standard wire frame thickness.
This is the drawing I did of the better shape Indy Magnoli came up with. When the lens size was still at 53mm, but it's in the correct final size. You'll see what I mean about the extra thickness.

Spoiler

Anyhow, Mr Magnoli, I have to say that drooping the lens frame makes a significant improvement, even without adjusting the shape of the upper outer corners. Did you rotate the lens frames? Regardless of what you did, the frame looks much better in the edit.

Are the bifocals important? Normal plano lenses would suffice since another screen used pair didn't have bifocal lenses anyway. The bifocal shape on your photoshop'd image is better, but it may be more work than needed at this point for something that would be accurate even without them.


And Squidman. Remember that the temples are not bent so much on the prototype. If they were bent further, the frame would appear to be tilted even further, making the lens height appear to be smaller. Anyway, good edit! You should have taken a shot at drawing the shape!

 

[Westies14]

There is definitely something to the shape where the lenses appear slightly wider relative to their height in most reference images than the prototype seems to show here. Is a slight adjustment/vertical squeeze possible to do while keeping a proper optometry size, proper manufacturer size/shape as figured out by J EM?

Rotating the lenses up definitely helps to begin with. Indy, with the original schematic not sitting this way, how do you feel this happened in manufacturing? Is it a risk to happen in the final run? Assuming this is something we need to compensate for, we should consider how it affects the placement/shape/angle of the front of the hinge arms.

J EM, do you think this color seems plausible as a "brand-new" stock, having had time to consider it? Have you looked at it compared to yours? Maybe polish up a section of the vintage frames and see what comes through, if you have a chance! I think this color might age/oxidize to a convincing bronze. How about the plastic covering on the end of the arms - does it compare well to your pair?

I'm certainly comfortable deferring to J EM on the frame wire thickness If the replacement glass in those reference pics is thick at all, it can transmit the wire color through its edges and appear to exaggerate its width.

I'd love it if bifocals do remain an option, even if the bifocal section can't be placed perfectly. J EM is right that it's not critical, if it proves to add expense or creates too much trouble on your end, Indy. I'd pick up pairs in both styles if you make them, though! I imagine Art Andrews would like to pair his displays with the right style for each season's wardrobe too.

 

[J EM]

There is definitely something to the shape where the lenses appear slightly wider relative to their height in most reference images than the prototype seems to show here. Is a slight adjustment/vertical squeeze possible to do while keeping a proper optometry size, proper manufacturer size/shape as figured out by J EM?

Rotating the lenses up definitely helps to begin with. Indy, with the original schematic not sitting this way, how do you feel this happened in manufacturing? Is it a risk to happen in the final run? Assuming this is something we need to compensate for, we should consider how it affects the placement/shape/angle of the front of the hinge arms.

J EM, do you think this color seems plausible as a "brand-new" stock, having had time to consider it? Have you looked at it compared to yours? Maybe polish up a section of the vintage frames and see what comes through, if you have a chance! I think this color might age/oxidize to a convincing bronze. How about the plastic covering on the end of the arms - does it compare well to your pair?

I'm certainly comfortable deferring to J EM on the frame wire thickness If the replacement glass in those reference pics is thick at all, it can transmit the wire color through its edges and appear to exaggerate its width.

I'd love it if bifocals do remain an option, even if the bifocal section can't be placed perfectly. J EM is right that it's not critical, if it proves to add expense or creates too much trouble on your end, Indy. I'd pick up pairs in both styles if you make them, though! I imagine Art Andrews would like to pair his displays with the right style for each season's wardrobe too.

What could be done to achieve a smaller looking lens height, without reducing the 44mm vertical measurement, is increasing the tilt, but it's already at 9 degrees. 10 is the standard forward tilt in wire frame glasses, but if Indy Magnoli's glasses had the 10 degree forward tilt, it'd only decrease the appearance by about .15mm.

Also, Indy Magnoli's glasses are 142mm overall frame width. The corners are 1mm longer at the front. Squidman would have had to upscale Indy Magnoli's photoshop'd image or downscale the reference image for a better comparison visual. Also, since it's just a quick edit, the bridge gap looks narrower on his edit. As long as it's 20mm when the final frame will be manufactured, it'll be fine. Here's a crappy visual I did to try showing how the forward/head tilt affects the appearance of the shape - to put that into perspective.Honestly, this doesn't do a damn thing, but the point I'm trying to make is that the vertical size of an object that is already tilted will appear to be smaller if it's not looked at directly from the front - at 0 degrees.

Spoiler

Frame 1 - with the temple parallel to the bottom - is how it should look like with the forward tilt accounted for, or if the temple end was bent further and the frame rests on a flat surface. Frame 2 is how the prototype is. It'll look correct when worn.

The sides of the lenses are smaller and curved. This also contributes to the lens' vertical size looking smaller than it is. I would've showed it here but I don't know much the lens curve is - the side bend depends entirely on the lens curve.

Bryan Cranston has quite the large head and we really can't visualize just how large (it's considered "medium") Walt's wire frame glasses are until you scale high res images of Walt accordingly. Upscale high res images until you can measure the size that was decided on the screen of your computer and you'll start to see just how wide the vertical lens measurement actually is. Here's a good image of Walt that shows how big the lenses are without angles photos were taken from and head tilts interfering with the shape of the lenses so much.

Spoiler

Westies14, I'd be comfortable with the bronze color of the prototype if Indy Magnoli can post an image of it under different lighting just to be certain, however, even without that I have to say I do lean toward it being correct. (the temple on the above image even looks more orange brown - like the prototype, doesn't it?) I have considered the color against my aden frame, but as long as the prototype looks a little more brown in less light, it'll be correct. The temple tips also look correct. They almost look black, don't they? that's assuming that it is the J26 color of whatever it was.

Another thing. The grooves do have to be a bit deeper - not too deep. I forgot to second that on my previous post.

 

[Indy Magnoli]

Ok, we'll take these comments on board. I don't think 100% perfection is possible... but we'll do our best. Regarding the metal color, here is a shot of the prototypes in natural lighting with no flash, sitting on my desk amidst a bunch of junk:

 

[SquidMan]

Wow, those look great. And the color actually looks a lot like the screen-used pair we've been referencing before. The bridge actually looks good here, not too thin, although that may just be the particularities of this photo playing tricks on me (should I trust this photo or the earlier ones, I wonder?)

Also, does this pair have the bifocal sections in the lenses? I can't see them at all.

 

[Westies14]

Color looks great - and appropriately chameleonesque in different lighting situations!

 

[SquidMan]

It looks like the frames also "droop" properly and that there's more of a curve in the seemingly thicker bridge in the pic you just posted, Indy Magnoli. Are the pic you posted before and this pic the same pair? The glasses in your most recent pic look more accurate to me.

 

[J EM]

Ok, we'll take these comments on board. I don't think 100% perfection is possible... but we'll do our best. Regarding the metal color, here is a shot of the prototypes in natural lighting with no flash, sitting on my desk amidst a bunch of junk:

Is that really the prototype? I have to say it surprisingly looks great as is on this photo. The bridge no longer looks thinner and the lens frames do not look off (rotated) as they did on the previous pictures.

Maybe the prototype won't need any changes to the bridge thickness and the lens frame droop. Could you please post a natural light front shot just to be sure?

Also, glad the color came out looking right!

 

[Westies14]

That is interesting. If the front’s outward curve - the amount the bridge is forward from the hinges - is significant, it could affect the appearance of the “droop” seen from the front. If the camera is up slightly, it’d exaggerate the downward angle of the “eyebrows.” Still, Cranston’s pair seems to have the sad eyes with his glasses (and sometimes head as well) tilted downward. The answer may not be in the front facing schematic, but in that outward bulge or the angle of the arms’ protrusion from the lenses... Or some combination of those elements.

Indy, can you snap a pic from the top? Are you able to get an angle from the front where the eyes appear to have the sad puppy dog droop?

 

[Indy Magnoli]

Ok, guys... here's another shot. These are the exact same glasses shown in every photo... EXCEPT: I physically bent them at the bridge, to add the "droop". Seems to have done the trick. I've informed the factory about this, so this can be incorporated into production, so no bending will be required by the end user.

 

[SquidMan]

Ok, guys... here's another shot. These are the exact same glasses shown in every photo... EXCEPT: I physically bent them at the bridge, to add the "droop". Seems to have done the trick. I've informed the factory about this, so this can be incorporated into production, so no bending will be required by the end user.

View attachment 940239

I think this photo does confirm that the bridge is indeed too thin, as we initially thought. Overal lens/frame looks pretty good to me here.

Will have to inspect more thoroughly once I get home later today.

J EM, Westies14, any thoughts on the bifocal placement?

 

[J EM]

Ok, guys... here's another shot. These are the exact same glasses shown in every photo... EXCEPT: I physically bent them at the bridge, to add the "droop". Seems to have done the trick. I've informed the factory about this, so this can be incorporated into production, so no bending will be required by the end user.

So the prototype was bent by hand to correct the droop. Ok. Well, it does look the way it should be after you've bent it. And this photo does reveal that the bridge would have to be thicker after all, maybe by about .5mm. Not only that, but it does still need a bit more of a curve that Squidman first brought up. (I think it was him)

I think this photo does confirm that the bridge is indeed too thin, as we initially thought. Overal lens/frame looks pretty good to me here.

J EM, Westies14, any thoughts on the bifocal placement?

I'm unsure of the placement. To be honest with you, I haven't given thought to the bifocal because I'd prefer the replica glasses to not have them. The only image we have available to speculate the bifocal placement is the image of the weathered screen used pair. I get a measurement of 29mm - placed 29mm below the top edge of the lens itself. 24mm bifocal size/length (which is one of 3 most common bifocal sizes), and 15mm bifocal width. The bifocal shape Indy Magnoli did on his edit was also more accurate.

That is interesting. If the front’s outward curve - the amount the bridge is forward from the hinges - is significant, it could affect the appearance of the “droop” seen from the front. If the camera is up slightly, it’d exaggerate the downward angle of the “eyebrows.” Still, Cranston’s pair seems to have the sad eyes with his glasses (and sometimes head as well) tilted downward. The answer may not be in the front facing schematic, but in that outward bulge or the angle of the arms’ protrusion from the lenses... Or some combination of those elements

I think I understand what you're trying to explain, but it might be due to the frame's base curve, not necessarily the bridge pop-out. It is true that the amount of bend (from the base curve), paired with the angle the frame is looked at, will influence the way the frame shape looks like. The new image Indy Magnoli posted shows that the bend doesn't influence the appearance of the shape, and that the lens frames were rotated slightly when the frame was assembled, resulting in that "aggressive" look. This is Indy Magnoli's lens shape with lens frames rotated 2 degrees each - that is what I thought happened. It looks like the first prototype photos, doesn't it?

Spoiler

When you mentioned puppy dog look, I interpreted that as a "droop," which really meant the shape the prototype should've originally been in; what it looks like on the most recent photo after it's been bent and what it looked like on the approved schematic.

Unless you meant something different by "puppy dog," would you clarify where you see this most on Walt's glasses, using the recent image of the prototype? Maybe I misunderstood and interpreted it as something else.

 

[SquidMan]

Ok, guys... here's another shot. These are the exact same glasses shown in every photo... EXCEPT: I physically bent them at the bridge, to add the "droop". Seems to have done the trick. I've informed the factory about this, so this can be incorporated into production, so no bending will be required by the end user.

Thought I'd upload another animated comparison, especially since these two photos have the glasses at almost the same exact angle:

The overall shape of the frames looks essentially spot-on, except for maybe a more intense curve on the inner corner near the bridge (though that may be due to a slight difference in angle between the two photos). What this does confirm, I think, is that the lenses are too close together, that the bridge is not curved quite enough, and that it should be a bit thicker. I don't think that the rest of the frames need to be any thicker, and the color is good, I think.

 

[Westies14]

I agree that the wire frame looks right thickness-wise in these new shots. I wonder how much of the lens shape difference is the forward curve of the face/front of the glasses - how sure are we about the curve we've assigned them? A lot depends on focal length etc, but if they were flatter the lenses might look wider like the reference Squidman's animated against them.

Indy, could you take a shot of them from quite far away at a decent resolution? Cropping in on that shot would give us a look that flattens out the shape, similar to the effect of the longer lens used for these hi-res promo images we keep comparing to. A close up with a wider focal length, like an iPhone's lens, can exaggerate some of the frames' characteristics.

I think it's clear now at least that the prototypes are much closer to what we'd hoped than the first images appeared, especially incorporating the "sad eyes" bend Indy applied!

 

[beiderbeck]

looks good to me, will there be an option for non bifocal lenses?

 

[Indy Magnoli]

We'll only be making them with the bi-focal. It's pretty subtle and not annoying if wearing for costume purposes.

 

[SquidMan]

We'll only be making them with the bi-focal. It's pretty subtle and not annoying if wearing for costume purposes.

Were you able to determine whether or not the manufacturer would be able to reposition the bifocals? I think they look good in your last mockup, Indy, they should be placed father apart like you Photoshopped.

 

[Indy Magnoli]

Yes, we will be repositioning the bifocals, moving them in a little bit.

 

[OncleCharlie]

Hi Indy,

Im in for a pair if it's possible